Control Flow and Data Flow: Concepts of Distributed Programming: International Summer School (Springer Study Edition)

And Dijkstra points out that especially back in nineteen eighty-four, but honestly, arguably even more so today for you listening, there is a hilarious amount of confusion around this entire field.

Oh, absolutely.

Dijkstra notes that computers are viewed from these wildly different, often completely contradictory angles.

People literally cannot agree on what a computer fundamentally represents.

He lists them out.

Yeah.

And it's so perceptive.

I mean, some view computers primarily as industrial products.

Right.

And if that is your view, he jokes, your biggest academic debate is whether to advertise your product with Charlie Chaplin or Mickey Mouse.

And he says computer science degrees should just be converted into, like, majors in sales promotion.

Yeah, which is a great dig.

Yeah.

But then others view computers primarily as the main battlefield of international competition.

Oh, right, the espionage angle.

Yeah.

If you take that view, your curriculum should just be industrial espionage and security.

Or, you know, some view automation as this great threat to employment, so in that case, you just study economics.

Mm.

Or you view machines as a philosophical threat to human life, constantly wondering, "Can machines think?" Which means computing actually belongs to the biology and psychology departments.

He is basically standing in front of his peers saying, "Nobody knows what we're actually doing here," which leads to his amazing historical comparison.

This is my favorite part.

He reminds the audience that science, historically speaking, completely failed its original objectives.

Yeah, the original objectives of early science were, uh, three very specific things: the elixir of eternal youth, the philosopher's stone to make infinite gold, and the accurate prediction of the future.

I mean, literally the ultimate wish list for humanity.

And Dijkstra points out that especially back in nineteen eighty-four, but honestly, arguably even more so today for you listening, there is a hilarious amount of confusion around this entire field.

Oh, absolutely.

Dijkstra notes that computers are viewed from these wildly different, often completely contradictory angles.

People literally cannot agree on what a computer fundamentally represents.

He lists them out.

Yeah.

And it's so perceptive.

I mean, some view computers primarily as industrial products.

Right.

And if that is your view, he jokes, your biggest academic debate is whether to advertise your product with Charlie Chaplin or Mickey Mouse.

And he says computer science degrees should just be converted into, like, majors in sales promotion.

Yeah, which is a great dig.

Yeah.

But then others view computers primarily as the main battlefield of international competition.

Oh, right, the espionage angle.

Yeah.

If you take that view, your curriculum should just be industrial espionage and security.

Or, you know, some view automation as this great threat to employment, so in that case, you just study economics.

Mm.

Or you view machines as a philosophical threat to human life, constantly wondering, "Can machines think?" Which means computing actually belongs to the biology and psychology departments.

He is basically standing in front of his peers saying, "Nobody knows what we're actually doing here," which leads to his amazing historical comparison.

This is my favorite part.

He reminds the audience that science, historically speaking, completely failed its original objectives.

Yeah, the original objectives of early science were, uh, three very specific things: the elixir of eternal youth, the philosopher's stone to make infinite gold, and the accurate prediction of the future.

I mean, literally the ultimate wish list for humanity.